Maha ̄bha ̄gavatamu(Doniger 1993: 121–57). Friedhelm Hardy also draws upon
sthalapura ̄n.as(“local Pura ̄n.as,” as he calls them elsewhere, Hardy 1990: 77),
both Sanskrit and vernacular, in order to illustrate “the Pura ̄n.ic process” (1990:
159–82). The only type of Pura ̄n.a which is not discussed at some point in Pura ̄n.a
Perennisis the caste-pura ̄n.a(e.g. the Mallaand the Ka ̄lika ̄which are the subject
of Das 1968).
The point that I wish to make by referring to these studies of pura ̄n.ic diver-
sity is that concentration on the 18 texts which have a special place in the
bra ̄hman.ical Sanskrit tradition involves a considerable limitation of one’s hori-
zons as far as the whole pura ̄n.ic field is concerned. Because I am writing just one
short chapter, rather than a whole book, most of what I say will be concerned
with this more limited field. Yet it is important to remember the wider horizon –
not least because it demonstrates the audacity of the claim made by the
bra ̄hman.icalpaura ̄n.ikasto have produced the “great,” i.e. normative and authori-
tative, examples of pura ̄n.ic literature.
Before discussing the nature of this claim it would be as well to look at the
names of the Eighteen. The following list is given in Vis.n.u3.6.20–4:
Brahma Brahmavaivarta
Padma Lin.ga
Vis.n.uVara ̄ha
S ́iva Skanda
Bha ̄gavata Va ̄mana
Na ̄rada Ku ̄rma
Ma ̄rkan.d.eya Matsya
Agni Garud.a
Bhavis.ya Brahma ̄n.d.aThis list coincides exactly with that which the Muslim scholar al-Bı ̄ru ̄nı ̄
(973–1048ce) says was read to him from the Vis.n.u.It is almost identical with
that given in Matsya53.13–53, the only difference being that Va ̄yuappears in
the latter instead ofS ́iva. There are other lists also, with slight variations, and
even a completely different list which al-Bı ̄ru ̄nı ̄ claims to have heard in addition
to the one from the Vis.n.u(Rocher 1986: 32–3), but on the whole the list is gen-
erally agreed. The discrepancy between S ́ivaandVa ̄yuis explained in Skanda
5.3.1.33–4 by saying that these are two names for the same Pura ̄n.a (Rocher
1986: 33). Another possible explanation is that there was some confusion
between the two because one of the sections of the S ́iva is called the
Va ̄yav ̄ıyasam.hita ̄.Besides these 19 Pura ̄n.as, there is another text which is some-
times ranked with them. This is the Harivam.s ́a, a supplement (khila) of the
Maha ̄bha ̄ratawhich is pura ̄n.ic rather than epic in its content and tone, and con-
tains much material which has close parallels in some Pura ̄n.as. Nevertheless, I
shall continue to refer to this group of Pura ̄n.as as 18 in number, because they
see themselves as 18.
Occasionally these 18 Pura ̄n.as are styled maha ̄pura ̄n.as(Bha ̄gavata12.7.10,22;
Vis.n.u 3.6.24), as though singling them out from a general corpus and
the pura ̄n.as 133